Gregory Simmons v. Timothy Gillespie
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5573
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Pekin police officer Gregory Simmons was suspended for 20 days by the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners for insubordination.
- A state court affirmed the board’s decision, but the Illinois appellate court reversed, holding the chief lacked authority to issue the order based on state law.
- Simmons sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming due process required back pay under state law; he did not contend a constitutional prohibition on suspensions or a federal right to back pay itself.
- The district court dismissed, ruling Illinois back-pay entitlement under §10–2.1–17 occurs only when the board rules in the officer’s favor, not when a state court does.
- This federal action raises two questions: whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the suit, and whether a misapplication of state law by a state actor violates due process.
- The court ultimately affirms the district court, concluding that Simmons is not entitled to a federal remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rooker-Feldman bar the federal suit? | Simmons seeks federal relief not to overturn a state decision but for compensation under state law. | The federal suit seeks to annul or undermine a state court judgment and thus falls within Rooker-Feldman. | Rooker-Feldman does not authorize relief here; (note: the court’s ultimate reasoning affirms dismissal on other grounds). |
| Does misapplication of state law by a state actor violate due process? | State misapplies §5/10–2.1–17, depriving Simmons of back pay without due process. | Due process requires only process, not a particular outcome; Simmons had sufficient process under state law. | No due process violation; process provided was adequate and the federal remedy is not available. |
| Is Simmons entitled to back pay under federal due process analysis? | Due process entitles back pay when state law creates a property interest. | Federal due process does not guarantee back pay; it guarantees process only. | No federal entitlement to back pay; Simmons not entitled to a federal remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (due process requires a hearing when a property interest is implicated)
- Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (state process and rights do not guarantee particular outcomes)
- Goros v. Cook County, 489 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2007) (state-law misapplication principles and due process considerations)
- Avila v. Pappas, 591 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2010) (court addresses state-law entitlements and due process in public employment)
- GASH Associates v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726 (7th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes preclusion and res judicata considerations in related suits)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (federal jurisdictional confines; Rooker-Feldman considerations in certain contexts)
- Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924 (1997) (due process and government action; entitlement to process rather than outcome)
- Archie v. Racine, 847 F.2d 1211 (7th Cir. 1988) (state-law implementation and due process considerations)
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (process and state-law remedies in occupancy and property contexts)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (due process and state-law procedures in deprivations of property)